Hey Mick LaSalle, do you ever change your mind about a movie?

Dear Mick LaSalle: Have you ever given a movie a positive or negative review and then years later changed your opinion?

William Wong Foey, Red Bluff

Dear William Wong Foey: Sure. Mostly, this happens with movies I thought I liked, because I don’t re-watch movies I dislike. Opinions about movies can change, not only because time passes and taste evolves, but also because of viewing circumstances. I pay a little extra attention to movies I’m reviewing, and some movies benefit from that attention. I saw “Knight of Cups” and loved it. Then I showed it to a class, while I sat in the back of the room checking my email, and afterward wondered why the movie wasn’t as good as I’d remembered. Meanwhile, bad movies are much worse when you watch them closely, because we’re forced to engage. All of this points to why a second experience is often more muted than a first, and first impressions are often better. Yet third impressions might be better than second impressions. Likewise, there’s something to be said for watching movies five or six times, but only when they deserve it.

Michael Dunn, as he appeared on “Wild Wild West.” Photo: Chronicle file photo

Dear Mick LaSalle: Many months ago you wrote that 1933 and not 1939 was the outstanding year for Hollywood films. Why?

Lew Silvers, Palo Alto

Dear Lew Silvers: Just as many great movies were made in 1933 as in 1939, but many more good movies were made in 1933. You can watch any routine release from 1933, and it will be worth seeing; whereas, many average releases from 1939 spark no joy at all. Also, many more good movies for actresses were made in 1933, while 1939 wasn’t a particularly good year for women. (Every year is a good year for men.) And 1933 is the year that talkies were fully mature and movies were still uncensored. Finally, just about everybody who was good in 1939 was better in 1933, with the possible exception of Clark Gable, and I’d even include him. That mustache wrecked him.

Dear Mick LaSalle: Some astrophysicists now believe that there are multiple universes, rather than just the one that we experience. I think I can confirm that there are at least two such universes: There is the one you apparently inhabit, in which “Crazy Rich Asians” was a very good movie, and then the one I live in, in which it was one of the most silly, boring and possibly offensive to some, of all movies I have ever seen. My question for you, therefore, is whether you believe that that movie was possibly different in our two universes, or do you think we both saw the same movie? Thank you for your consideration of this deep metaphysical question.

Douglas Towne, Calistoga

Dear Douglas Towne: Well, I’m impressed. You managed to take the time-honored question, “Did we see the same movie?,” and stretch it to 115 words. But here’s what I’m wondering. Even if there are two universes, or 100, we could all still be seeing the same movie in our separate universes, right? So where is the joke here? If it’s still just a matter of perception, whether we’re in the same or different universes, why drag in the astrophysicists, right? Conversely, if each universe really gets a different movie, then what’s the complaint? In that case, we really have seen different movies, and mine could have been good and yours could have been “offensive to some” (always a safe bet). My point is, by literalizing the cliche — “Did we see the same movie?” — you’ve sort of rendered it toothless. It’s normally intended to mean, “You’re such an obtuse critic that you can’t see what everyone else sees.” But in your scenario, I’m basically off the hook, because, hey, we probably saw different movies. With that in mind, I suggest you get in touch with whatever critics in your universe liked “Crazy Rich Asians,” and make sure to tell them what’s what.

Have a question? Ask Mick LaSalle at mlasalle@sfchronicle.com. Include your name and city for publication, and a phone number for verification. Letters may be edited for clarity and length.